Israeli opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot said on Saturday that he intends to form the broadest government possible in Israel, citing a parliamentary majority that he claims stems from the election results and the support of Arab parties. The announcement came after the 2026 parliamentary vote, in which Eisenkot’s bloc secured 48 seats — 19 of which were won by the Joint List and the Muslim Ra’am party — while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition obtained 53 seats.
In a social‑media post that he later shared on Xinhua’s website, Eisenkot argued that more than half a million Israeli voters had rejected Netanyahu’s government. He noted that the 19 seats garnered by Arab parties formed a clear majority of those who opposed the current administration. Eisenkot said he would seek to advance “a clear parliamentary majority” on initiatives such as a state commission of inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack, mandatory service for all Israelis, and the repeal of the judicial overhaul legislation promoted by the current government.
Strategic Use of Parliamentary Confidence
According to Eisenkot, assembling a coalition is not strictly required for moving legislation; he explained that a strong parliamentary majority could be mobilized even without forming a new government. He stressed that “in Israel, it is the parliament that gives its confidence to the government, not the other way around.” This rhetorical point points to Eisenkot’s view that the real power resides in the Knesset’s ability to coerce a majority around a shared agenda.
Eisenkot said on social media: “Let no one mislead: In Israel, it is the parliament that gives its confidence to the government, not the other way around.”
While the announcement confirms Eisenkot’s determination to broaden his legislative base, it also raises questions about how he plans to secure the support of Arab parties and whether a government could be sworn in without Netanyahu’s coalition. The Arab parties have historically been outspoken critics of Netanyahu, yet their ultimate participation in a new government would signal a major shift in Israel’s political landscape.
Another question remains about the practical implementation of the proposed initiatives. A state commission of inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack, for instance, would require coordination across the executive and judicial branches. Mandatory service for all Israelis, a radical proposal, would affect civilian and military recruitment systems, while the repeal of the judicial overhaul would have long‑term implications for the balance of powers within Israeli democracy.
These proposals align with Eisenkot’s broader stance that the opposition bloc has become a majority voice, not just a numerical one. By framing the 48 seats of his coalition, combined with the 19 seats of Arab parties, as a majority of voters reshaping policy, he positions himself as a viable counterforce to Netanyahu’s leadership.
It remains to be seen how this majority will function in practice. Prerequisites for a functioning coalition include a cohesive policy platform, trust between the parties, and a clear path to policy implementation. The need for consensus on each of the key initiatives will likely test Eisenkot’s ability to keep the support of disparate groups—particularly given the varied priorities of the Arab parties that now hold a significant bloc of seats in the Knesset.
In addition, the question of how a single opposition leader will secure the trust of a fragmented parliament is another obstacle. The Israeli parliamentary system has historically rotated coalitions and required extensive negotiations among parties with diverse interests. Whether Eisenkot can navigate these complexities, while also leveraging his asserted majority, will determine whether his promises translate into real legislative change.
